Replies

Instead of posting I have been trying to track down information on Clement.

Here:

Business Cases
Bratcher v. Nat'l Standard Life Ins. Co. (In re Monumental Life Ins. Co.), 365 F.3d 408 (CA5 2004) - dissented from panel decision authorizing class action to challenge racial discrimination in sale of life insurance policies.
Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345 (CA5 2003) - held that disgorgement of past profits was not a proper equitable remedy under RICO where defendant was no longer producing product that gave rise to RICO claim and, therefore, disgorgement would not serve to deter similar RICO violations in the future.
Commerce Clause
GDF Realty Investments, Ltd. v. Norton, 362 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2004): Judge Clement joined Judge Edith Hollan Jones's dissenting opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc. The opinion argued that the Endangered Species Act could not be applied to protect a rare species of underground bug since this act of preservation was not connected with "any sort of commerce, whether tourism, scientific research, or agricultural markets."
Federalism
U.S. v. McFarland, 311 F.3d 376 (CA5 2002): A defendant who had been convicted of violating the Hobbs Act challenged his conviction on the grounds that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish a nexus to interstate commerce. Judge Clement joined Judge Garwood's dissent from the en banc opinion, arguing that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to reach local robberies under the Hobbs Act.
Standing
Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc. --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 1385197 (CA5 2005): joined a majority opinion by Judge Jerry E. Smith holding that an employee who failed to disclose her pending EEOC charge and potential title VII claim to a bankruptcy court was judicially estopped from asserting Title VII claims pending at time she filed bankruptcy petition, as well as claims filed while bankruptcy was pending.
Punitive Damages
Vogler v. Blackmore, 352 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2003): Judge Clement authored a majority opinion reducing a jury verdict for pain and suffering damages to the estates of a mother and three-year old daughter killed when an eighteen-wheel tractor trailer crossed the highway center-line and ran over their car. The damages to the mother were reduced from $200,000 to $30,000 and the pain and suffering award for the daughter was eliminated entirely based on the lack of specific evidence about the daughter's "awareness of the impending collision."
Criminal Sentencing
United States v. Houston, 364 F.3d 243 (CA5 2004) - held that consensual sex, constituting statutory rape, between 20 year old male and 17 year old girl was not a "crime of violence" for purposes of provision requiring sentencing enhancement for crimes of violence.
United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement, writing for a unanimous panel, found that possession of a deadly weapon was not a crime of violence within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines and therefore overturned an enhancement to the defendant's sentence.
United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement found that the district court erred in attributing five kilograms of cocaine to the defendant for sentencing purposes. Although the defendant was in fact part of a conspiracy to distribute that amount of drugs, only quantities which the defendant was actually involved with or could have reasonably foreseen (however, the sentence was upheld because Judge Clement found the error to be harmless).
United States v. Vargas-Duran, 319 F.3d 194 (CA5 2003) - Judge Clement dissented from the panel's decision that a conviction for "intoxicated assault" was necessarily a conviction for a "crime of violence" because it necessitated the use of force against another person. Judge Clement argued that under binding precedent, use of force was only a "crime of violence" if it was intentional. On rehearing en banc, the full circuit adopted Judge Clement's position.
Death Penalty/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Riley v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 302 (CA5 2004) - rejected habeas claim by capital defendant whose defense attorney disregarded IQ test showing that inmate was retarded because attorney believed, based on personal observation and family and school records, that his client was not retarded.
Beltran v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that a defense attorney's failure to impeach eyewitness identifications with prior inconsistent statements by the witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and was grounds for habeas relief.
United States v. Harris, 408 F.3d 186 (CA5 2005) - reversing district court?s grant of habeas corpus and reinstating sentence in post-conviction proceeding brought by police officer convicted of federal civil rights violations for excessive use of force with his baton on a drunken suspect in police custody. Writing for panel, rejects defendant's argument that his counsel failed to call witnesses to rebut government evidence that defendant was a racist, explaining that none of the witnesses would have been able to testify to defendant's guilt or innocence and that in any event government could have obtained a conviction b/c of evidence that he used a dangerous weapon. Also, defendant was not charged with a hate crime. Also rejects defendant?s argument that failure to allow him to testify on his own behalf constituted ineffective assistance, explaining that there was no prejudice.
Criminal Due Process
United States v. Mason, 293 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that a prosecution witness's misleading statements about the nature of his agreement with the government violated the defendant's due process rights.
United States v. Tarango, 396 F.3d 666 (Jan. 2005) - Panel affirms district court's grant of new trial to defendant tried at the same time as absent co- defendant, explaining that defendant had been clearly prejudiced by being tried along an "empty chair," particularly when much of the evidence that the jury heard was inadmissible as to her. Judge Clement dissents, finding clear and compelling evidence that defendant received a fair trial - including the limiting instructions issued by the district court to the jury, the fact that defendant was acquitted as to one charge, and the evidence itself.
First Amendment - Free Speech Generally
Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 339 F.3d 273 (5th Cir., 2003) - held that school district's policy requiring pre-approval of protest fliers handed out by parents at the school's "math night" constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint, in violation of the First Amendment.
Finch v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.3d 555 (5th Cir., 2003) - held, among other things, that former principal's First Amendment retaliation claim failed when the retaliation was allegedly in response to her proposals to other school officials and school board members that the school create a special curriculum for older students who had failed several grades. The speech was not entitled to protection, the court held, because the principal failed "to show how her proposal was actually aired or considered in any 'widespread debate in the community.'"

continued below...

Fourth Amendment
United States v. Neufeld-Neufeld, 338 F.3d 374 (5th Cir., 2003) - held police had reasonable suspicion support vehicle stop where: (1) defendant was 35 miles from the border; (2) he was traveling north; (3) the highway did not traverse any settled area other than a park service headquarters; and (4) the highway only intersected one other road between the border and where the officers encountered defendant. One officer had less than two years' experience, but he benefitted from the other officer's 13 years of experience in deciding to stop the pickup. Even if it was assumed that the officers could not identify a vacationer to the park, the following factors provided reasonable suspicion: (1) the proximity to the border; (2) the proximity to a drug cache that the officers were enroute to investigate, which was two miles; (3) the use of a known drug smuggling route in an area known for drug smuggling; and (4) the fact that defendant appeared stiff, stared straight ahead, failed to acknowledge the patrol car, and slowed down considerably. Taken together, the factors sufficed to form a particularized and objective basis for stopping the vehicle, making the stop reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Ellis, 330 F.3d 677 (5th Cir., 2003) - court held that Border patrol agents violated Fourth Amendment by squeezing and sniffing luggage on way off bus, after completing immigration check. The court held that the delay to manipulate the baggage impermissibly extended the seizure because it was not supported by reasonable suspicion.
Zaffuto v. City of Hammond, 308 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement found that a police supervisor's surreptitious recording of a phone call made by an officer from his private office violated the Fourth Amendment.
Civil Rights - Race Discrimination
Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that the district court erred in failing to consider prior incidents of harassment in determining whether the plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment. Any claims based on those incidents were time-barred, but Judge Clement held that they were still relevant background information for the evaluation of non-time- barred claims. However, she also found that the error was harmless because even taken together the incidents did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment.
Baker v. Waterford Square Homeowners Ass'n, 57 Fed.Appx. 211 (CA5 2003) (per curiam) (unpublished): Recognizing that the Fair Housing Act may provide relief for plaintiffs alleging "hostile housing environment" race, national origin and/ or sex discrimination.
Civil Rights - Disability Discrimination
Henrickson v. Potter, 327 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement found on behalf of a unanimous panel that the plaintiff's claim of disability discrimination was properly dismissed because the defendant was the U.S. Postal Service and the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to the federal government.
Blanks v. Southwestern Bell Communs., Inc., 310 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement found that the plaintiff's HIV was not a disability within the meaning of the ADA. She acknowledged that HIV was physical impairment, but held that the plaintiff had not established the requisite interference with a major life activity.
Soledad v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 304 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2002) - Writing for the panel, Judge Clement held that the standard for a claim of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (the pre-ADA law that still governs claims against the government) is whether an adverse employment action occurred "solely because of" the plaintiff's disability.
Qualified Immunity
Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (CA5 2004) - Judge Clement joined Judge Edith Hollan Jones's partial dissent from a denial of a qualified immunity-based summary judgment motion in a suit brought by instructors at police academy who, having testified as experts against the police in excessive-force case brought in another part of state, alleged that police officials had boycotted instructors' courses and tried to effect their removal in retaliation for testimony. The partial dissent argued that the police officials named as defendants in the suit were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions since "no reasonable police chiefs and sheriffs could have clearly understood . . . that they were violating the First Amendment by refusing to enroll their recruits in Kinney's and Hall's classes."
Tarver v. City of Edna, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9533 (CA5 May 25, 2005) - Writes for three-judge panel in affirming district court's denial of summary judgment re qualified immunity with regard to excessive force claim brought by grandfather who alleged that, while in police custody in a police car, police officer had slammed the car door on his foot and head, when car doors were allegedly opened by family members trying to check on his well-being after police officer refused to open windows or turn on air-conditioner. Opinion notes that "the severity of the crime at issue was minimal, [grandfather] did not pose an immediate threat to anyone's safety, and according to the testimony of four witnesses, there was no risk of Tarver trying to escape police custody." However, reversed denial of summary judgment w/r/to other qualified immunity claims.
Habeas
Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665 (CA5 2005) - Judge Clement joined Judge Edith Hollan Jones's dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc for a habeas action brought by a state prisoner who had been indicted for sex offenses but convicted of only misdemeanor assault. The dissent interpreted AEDPA as preventing federal courts from striking down decisions that were "just wrong" as opposed to "really wrong." ("AEDPA authorizes federal courts to overturn only those state court decisions that represent an 'unreasonable' application of constitutional law decided by the Supreme Court. An 'unreasonable' decision must be not just wrong, but really wrong.")
Federal Preemption
Mitchell Energy & Dev. Corp. v. Fain, 311 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not preempt state prohibitions on the waiver of claims for unemployment compensation.

SOURCE